Dismissed

Mohammed Imran Azeez v. Shahnaz and 2 others

Telangana HC12 Sept 2023CRLRC/2390/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition assailing a sessions court order was dismissed as infructuous. The High Court noted that issues between the parties were amicably settled via compromise, leading to the quashing of related criminal proceedings and subsequent remarriage of the complainant.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision case was dismissed as infructuous, and all pending miscellaneous petitions stood closed.

Mohammed Imran Azeez Vs Shahnaz and 2 others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY^{OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶5

CRIMINAL RE VISION CASE NO: 2390 OF 2018

¶6

Criminal Revision Case under Section^{397&401of Cr.P.C. againstthe} Judgment dated 27-04-2018 made^{in MC.No.387i2015on the file of the Court of} the Additional Metropolitan Sessions^{Judge for Trail of JHCBBC Court-cum-} Additional Family Court - cum- XXlll^{Additional Chief Judge} -cum-^{lX Additional} Metropolitan Sessions Judge,^Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mohammed lmran Azeez, S/o. Fasiuddin,^{Age- 32 years, Occ- Gulf Return,} Fl/o H. No. 7-2-1033, Rythu Bazar, Kashmeer^{Gadda, Karimnagar District.}

¶9

...Accused/Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

Shahnaz, Wo. Mohammed lmran Azeez,^{Age- 27 yearc,FUo H. No.1-6-2911,} Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶12

Anamta lmran, Mohammed lmran^{Azeez, Age-10 Months, Represented by} her mother and natural^{guardian,Fl/oH. No. 1-6-2911,Musheerabad,} Hyderabad.

¶13

The State of Telangana, Represented by^{its Public Prosecutor,HighCourt of} Judicature at Hyderabad.

¶14

...ComplainanURespondent

¶15

lA NO: 2 OF 2018

¶16

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings incruding execution of the order 27-04-2018 passed in M.c. No. 387 ot 2015 on the fire Additionar Metroporitan sessions Judge for the Trial of Jubilee Hills car Bomb Blast case cum Additional Family cou( cum XXlll Additional Chief Judge cum lX Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in the interest of justice.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. M.A.K MUKHEED Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRl. GADDAM KTRAN KUMAR Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: pUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CRIMINAI REVISION CASE No.2390 OF 2018 ORDER:

¶19

Heard Mr.Lalshmi Naralana, Ieamed counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.K.Sidharth Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶20

This revision has been filed assailing the order dated 27.04.20L8 in M.C. No.387 o{ 201.5 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Jubilee Ffills Car Bomb Blast C-ase- cum- Additional Family Crurt- cum-)OOOII Additional Chief Judge-cum-IX A.MSJ., Hlderabad.

¶21

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the issues between the revision petitioner and the respondents^have IN been amicabie settled in view of the compromise^and consequence, this C-ourt had quashed the proceedings in^CC. No.41 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad vide Crl.P.No.3298 of 2022 agatnst the revision petitioner and two others. Subsequently, respondent

¶22

¶23

No.1 was remarried and settled, thu, the cause in the revision

¶24

case become infructuous.

¶25

Leamed counsel for the revision peririoner accedes the

¶26

submissions made bythe leamed counsel for respondent No.2.

¶27

That being the position as rhe cause does nor survive for

¶28

adjudication, this revision case is dismissed as infructuous.

¶29

As a sequel, miscellaneous petirions, pending if any, shall

¶30

stand closed.

¶31

Sd/- M. RAMANA^KRISHNA DEP UTY^REG RAR

//TRUE COPY'

SECT N OFFICER

To,

The Additional^{Metropolitan Sessions Jrl!99} {q1.]rait^{of JHCBBC Court-} ' ;;: nJJitiJnur ramiry dourt -ium- xxttinoditional chief Judqe -cum-. lX Additional Metropolit#6"tt[it^{luOUe' nvOera6s6Cwtih ;nesvvaatr"rv')}

¶36

Two CC^{to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶37

One CC to^{SRl. M.A.K MUKHEED, Advocate IOPUCI}

¶38

One CC to^{SRl. GADDAM KIRAN KUMAR' AdvocateIOPUCI}

¶39

Two CD^CoPies

PSR W

HIGH COURT

NTR,J

DATE D: 1 210912023

STATE oA
{
( 9
>o
trN 1[?[
3 u 21
o

6Eg,:r',1-

¶45

ORDER

¶46

CRLRC.No.2390 ot 2018

¶47

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE AS INFRUCTUOUS.

¶48

I qrfsA w lC(*

Mohammed Imran Azeez v. Shahnaz and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Imran Azeez v. Shahnaz and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Padmavathi Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd Raheemuddin Vs State of Telangana

Md. Khadeer Mirza Baig Vs Md. Nazimunnisa

Lakamana Maheswari Vs The State of Telangana

Bandela David Sandeep Vs Sheena Mrinalini

T.Srinivasa Rao Vs State of Telangana, Acb